I have always pretty much considered myself "Christian," but only because I believe in the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, and morally, I am what used
to be considered Christian. Other than that, the commonality between myself and the institution of Christianity ends.

As anyone who has been here long enough knows, most of my beliefs are certainly not mainstream Christian and sometimes, one would probably pause and
wonder if I am Christian at all because I am so criticial of it as an institution.

However, when I look at the world today, it is clear to me that the road that these two, in my opinion, warlike religions are trying to carry humanity
is not good. At some point and time, the rest of humanity has to say, "You know what, ENOUGH!!" Until that happens, things are not going to get any
better in the Middle East or anywhere else. That is just a cold hard fact.

I am bumping this thread. I think with all of the talk about Christianity and Islam here, this is a pertinent thread. Will it anger some for this
thread to be re-instated? I am sure. However, when one truly examines history and was is currently taking place in the world today, it becomes
apparent that there is more truth than fluff to what I am saying.

There has never been any love lost between the Islamic nations and the nations of the West. It all goes back to the time of the crusades when the
Catholic Church and Islam were fighting for ideology and control of the known world. Today nothing really has changed between pseudo Christianity and
Islam except for the weapons of warfare.

In recent times the West with its vastly superior military has dictated policy to these nations but now that there are Islamic nuclear weapons, the
Islamic nations will try to force a change.

Islamic countries for the most part will unite against the West over hatred of Israel, Western interventionism in the Middle-East and Western values.
Many also believe that war against (what they call) the infidels is the will of Allah. The West with its need for oil will try to retain control over
the area. The clash between the two civilizations will help bring to power the man who is commonly known as the Antichrist.

It is my opinion that these religions have an uncanny knack of bringing out what is already in a person.

Take for example, within Christianity say, that one person will actually try to live the teachings of Jesus. Conversely, another person will say that
the Sermon on the Mount was a beautiful speech, but that there is no way anyone can actually live that way.

Which one do you suppose is more interested in the get into heaven free card and subsequently will be more prone to do horrendous actions, including
saying that the rest of the world is going to that hot place?

Which one is more likely to say live and let live?

What someone is predisposed to believe, imo, is just a reflection of their internal state.

True that the religions do seem to reinforce duality more so than to bring people into oneness. It seems unfortunate, but then again maybe that is
what it takes for some individuals to wake up by actually coming to see and experience the lies first hand?

Great post man. All the general population of America wants to do is point fingers at Islam, call it evil, violent and hateful; when in fact the
Christian Bible teaches no better.

The wars in the middle east have always had religious undercurrents and implications; at times Bush doesn't even try to conceal it. He's openly
proclaimed the war on terror is a crusade, God is on America's side, etc. If I were living in the middle east as a Muslim, listening to Bush, I
wouldn't just think, I'd know it was a holy war.

The last thing we need is another Republican taking office to continue the crusade against intelligence.

You know, I was skimming an article that I came across, in regards to Islam, and all I could think was "Aha." There was a paraphrase of something
that I think pretty much sums up my whole view of the situation and why I have developed such hostility towards these two warlike religions.

The only good ruler is a Muslim ruler, asserted Ibn Taymiyah. And by that he meant one that enforces shari`ah, or Islamic law.

This is the sort of thing that disturbs me the most. Now, while the article does state that "most" Muslims don't feel this way, I have to wonder
how factual that is. When one looks at the current situation around the world that is not obviously true.

Fundamentalism is what has caused both the Christian and Islamic religions to devolve into the warring religions that they are today. Neither side
wants to listen to one another, and they certainly do not want to hear a "strange" alternative viewpoint.

In terms of the current conflicts incorporated in the "War on Terror", I think that the political and economic factors at play far outweigh the
religious issues from the Coalition side of things.

It has been theorised in the past (and I tend to agree) that George W Bush, who initiated the War on Terror, is little more than a "convenient"
Christian (ie: he wears the trappings, and goes through the motions). This can be attributed to the fact that a non-Christian would never get elected
in a country like America. Likewise, the combatants and politicians on the Coalition side of the fence are not engaged in the "War" primarily to
proselytise Christianity. I certainly agree with pundits who theorise that they are proselytising "democracy" and Western values, and opposing
totalitarianism but, no, their motivations are not predominantly religious in nature.

As for the Muslims, and Muslim extremists, yeah it's all about the religion. But that isn't a particularly telling statement. For a lot of them,
their lives are wholly dictated by their faith. Even the simple act of eating a meal incorporates religious elements for them. There are also
significant political factors at play, though. I don't believe that they see themselves at war with Christianity per se, but rather Western
oppression and the application of "decadent Western values" as a whole, via invasion or democratisation.

You know, Roark, what you are saying is quite possible. For years and years, I was somewhat bitter over the supposed inquisition and the burning of
"heretics" that the "church" supposedly incited. However, over the past few months, there have been some things that have questioned the
"church's" complicity in this.

I have come across information which basically stated that the inquisition and witch hunt was more of a political move than a sanctioned act by the
"church." So, I am still left, even after twenty years of research, scratching my head on such matters.

Yeah, certainly a lot of people made accusations of witchcraft against others for political gain.

I'm a little ignorant about what the motivations of the big-wigs of the medieval church were, but I'm sure there were some who thought they were
doing "good" by cleansing the earth of "evil witches". Maybe they were just so far removed from the scenes of burning bodies that it never
touched them on a personal level, and they were just signing warrants etc.

Some of You people have no idea. People are people and nothing changes. These same people can be republicans, democrats, christian, muslim, gay,
straight, beer drinker sports fan, what ever and they will still have opinions. Just because one group is a little more vocal it doesn't mean they
are to blame for all the worlds woes. I was a fundamentalist at one time and the people I went to church with were some of the most peaceful people I
have ever met. Now they might try to witness to You but other than that they were ok people when they didn't talk about their beliefs which You
people don't realize. I don't see how they are any different then say a republican whom is very opinionated on taxes or welfare. What about the
democrats about so called social justice and abortion. These two groups are going to always argue with what they think is best for society even though
these two groups have different life experiences. Most christians go to work and then church on the week ends. Hell most of them You wouldn't know
they were christian unless You singled them out. I work with several christians and the only difference between them and the other guys is they don't
talking about sex, drinking, & partying. So stop brushing people with a wide brush because it makes You look just as intolerant as the christians you
hate so much.

JKM, I will say this. I do believe that most of what has been done was done with the thought they were doing "right." However, history and spiritual
truth never die.

If you look at things like the inquistion, the "church" basically tried to eradicate spiritual ideas that had been around for thousands and
thousands of years before Christ, certainly before the "church." While doing this, they made sure to say, "The truth never dies." Ha, it's
ironic, they sure did try like hell to kill it, but, invariably, they must have been correct because many of the ideas that they tried to eradicate
still exist.

Jews, Muslims and Christians... all three religions are principalities of Azazeel he is the fallen angel that is purported to have taught man the
martial skills and the manufacture of weaponry. All three of these religions do not walk their talk except Islam which preaches death to all infidels
and I don't think that's good for any human beings well being. The only creatures that the Muslims and the Jews give a break to is the Pig. It is
because they are pigs. Christians don't give any creature a break not even the pig. They are quick to kill and make bacon. I think all of Abraham's
children are murderers of women and children. This is only my humble opinion.

Hey, I understand. However, I think it is pertinent to look at issues from all sides and put them into perspective.

There is not much arguing, as far as I am concerned, about whether the "war on terror" is a religious war. I think it is fairly obvious to an astute
mind that it is very much a religious war.

With that being said, I think that the world needs to consider its options in regards to what it's going to do about it. In my honest opinion, it is
a situation that has become completely out of control.

When one speaks and uses their faith to back an opinion, it is frowned upon,ridiculed and made a joke of,to say the least!
When one speaks and uses their lack of knowledge as an opinion,they are called stupid idiots or the like,.
When one speaks , although it may be lacking in wisdom,or thoughts without sense ,all sides want to bow down to it.
Oh my, the grandeur of an atheist!
To have an opinion?
To not have an opinion?
To believe in God?
To not believe in God?

~A quote.

We must not measure the reality of love by feelings,
but by results.
Feelings are very delusive.
They often depend on mere natural temperament,
and the devil wrests them to our hurt.
A glowing imagination is apt to seek itself rather than God.
But if you are earnest in striving to serve and endure for God's sake,
if you persevere amid temptation,
dryness,
weariness,
and desolation,
you may rest assured that your love is real.

... Jean N. Grou (1731-1803)

All Faith,Hope and Love seems lost amongst those that never quit!

~The Sign of the times~

... even him whose coming is after the working of satan with all lying wonders,
and with all deceivableness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth,
but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:3-4, 9-12).

also to quote/"Therefore, brethren,
stand fast,
and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word,
or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).
"There be some that trouble you,
and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.
But though we,
or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema.
As we said before,
so say I now again: If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8-9).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.